http://www.iruns.ir/ Iranian Review for UN Studies en daily 1 Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0330 Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0330 http://www.iruns.ir/article_232600.html The conflict between Israel and Hamas from October 7, 2023, presents a unique test case for assessing the efficacy of international criminal law in the prevention of types of serious international crimes. This study takes an analytical approach to international criminal law using primary legal sources, official documents, authoritative interpretations, and recent judicial decisions, including the arrest warrants issued by the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber against leaders on both sides in November 2023. The study, by systematic examination of the reports from international organizations and technological verification of the evidence, seeks to see how these actions by Hamas and Israel forces fulfill the actus reus and mens rea of violations of international criminal law constituting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and potentially genocide under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Rather than simply the recent ICC arrest warrants on starvation as a method of warfare and deliberate attacks on civilians, we'll be looking deeper into other violations, including the use of prohibited weapons, destruction of cultural property, and systematic patterns that could rise to genocide. The findings establish that both found guilty are international criminals, which do call for thorough investigations by the ICC; these prosecutions, however, do face major jurisdictional, evidentiary, and political bugs. These findings show that international criminal law might always moderate modern armed conflicts, through effective prosecution of violations against international humanitarian law, even if the first tentative steps to accountability have begun through the issuance of arrest warrants for key leaders on both sides of the conflict. http://www.iruns.ir/article_234600.html This article examines the scope and effectiveness of international economic sanctions, emphasizing their consequences for the civilian population of targeted countries. Focusing on Iran, the study explores how successive rounds of sanctions—imposed by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations—have profoundly disrupted the country’s banking sector. Sanctions have constrained international transfers, blocked access to global payment infrastructures, and weakened the enforceability of bank guarantees, thereby undermining both public and private banking operations. Our analysis is expanded to consider adaptive strategies and alternatives pursued within Iran, including the use of Islamic finance instruments based on profit-and-loss sharing and qarḍ al-ḥasana mechanism, as well as emerging reliance on blockchain technologies and cryptocurrency mining. The findings further reveal that, despite being justified as “smart” sanctions, these measures have broad and counterproductive effects, eroding financial stability, harming civilians, and raising questions about the credibility of sanctions as instruments of international policy. http://www.iruns.ir/article_243022.html Today, the spread of terrorist crimes around the world requires a comprehensive definition, and international and regional documents can be used to help in this regard. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, global efforts against terrorism increased. Hence, the recognition of some terrorist acts as crimes against humanity and war crimes in international criminal law, the adoption of the Financing of Terrorism Convention, and the emergence of terrorism as a distinct international customary crime are promising developments for international prosecution of individuals who represent groups. Therefore, for the international prosecution of individuals who commit the crime of terrorism, it should be transformed into the ratification of an international treaty or the inclusion of terrorism as the fifth international crime in the Rome Statute and the expansion of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Despite the fact that the ICC does not have jurisdiction to prosecute terrorism crimes, the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, emphasized the need to include terrorist crimes as a crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC. http://www.iruns.ir/article_243023.html Children have become the most tragic indicators of human suffering in contemporary armed conflicts, especially in occupied territories where violence, deprivation, and fear dismantle the very essence of childhood. From Gaza and the West Bank to Ukraine and Syria, their lives unfold within a continuum of insecurity where traditional boundaries between war and peace have collapsed. These children endure not only physical harm but also displacement, loss of education, trauma, and denial of identity, revealing the profound moral and legal crisis of modern occupation. This article examines the legal and humanitarian rules governing the conduct of occupying powers toward child victims of armed conflict and assesses the extent to which these norms provide effective protection. By analyzing the intersection between jus in bello and jus post bellum, it argues that protecting children is both a legal obligation and a moral test of occupation’s legitimacy. While instruments such as the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Additional Protocols, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child articulate duties of care, education, and health, persistent violations expose the gulf between normative commitments and lived realities. Through a doctrinal and interpretive methodology grounded in treaty law, jurisprudence, and UN practice, the study reveals structural and political obstacles that undermine enforcement, including fragmentation between humanitarian and human rights regimes and erosion of accountability. Ultimately, the true measure of lawful occupation lies not in preserving administrative order but in preserving childhood itself. http://www.iruns.ir/article_243024.html Ever since its adoption, the status of the JCPOA has been the subject of discussion amongst scholars. This has been mainly due to the fact that, had the JCPOA been conceived as a Treaty, it would entail certain consequences for the parties to the document “signed”. This Note takes a different approach, however, and aims to take a more nuanced view of the obligations brought forth by the document. If one is to consider the background of the obligations of the UN Member States under UNSC Resolution 2231, namely being obliged “…under Article 25 of the Charter…to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions…”, the status of the JCPOA itself under international law becomes less relevant. In other words, the JCPOA is granted a special position in international law; one that is “endorsed” by a UNSC Resolution, and thereby, having a special place so that the UN Member States have an obligations to adhere to it, and facilitate its implementations.With this consideration in mind, the Note provides a hybrid approach to the question of JCPOA and the dispute between Iran and other participants to it; one that provides the facts necessary in order to come to the rationale behind Iran’s lawful measures under international law. After analysing the Trump administration’s justifications in its withdrawal from the plan, as well as the EU’s obligations under international law, the lawful measures by Iran to counter (and induce) the participants are analysed through the text of ARSIWA. http://www.iruns.ir/article_242972.html International organizations, by expanding their activities, are able to violate international obligations and commit crimes. However, the criminal responsibility of international organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, has not been accepted despite their recognition. Because, the International Criminal Court has only accepted the criminal responsibility of natural persons. On the other hand, national courts also lack the necessary competence. Therefore, this article raises the question in a descriptive-analytical manner as to what obstacles exist in accepting the criminal responsibility of international organizations at the level of international law and domestic law? It seems that the rule of hegemonic powers, the undemocratic structure governing the international legal system, the opposition of states to justify the reason for the principle of non-intervention, and legal challenges (such as immunity), political, and functional, are obstacles to any acceptance of criminal responsibility.In addition, the moral element of the crime and its attribution to legal persons is also a matter of dispute. Hence, the need to regulate the criminal liability of international organizations, as in the draft of the Liability of International Organizations adopted in 2011, is obvious. In addition, the creation of a special body or a revision of the Rome Statute to address the liability of legal persons, especially international organizations, whether governmental or otherwise, seemed necessary. http://www.iruns.ir/article_243025.html The functioning of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, is carried out by judges who are not only preeminent scholars of international law but often former diplomats, elected through a rigorous socio-political and diplomatic process. These judges represent diverse legal cultures, a background that inevitably influences their judicial reasoning—most notably observed in historical processes such as decolonization, where judges from the Global South played a pivotal role. However, the tenure of the current Ugandan judge, Judge Julia Sebutinde, has emerged as a particularly contentious case. Influenced, as reported, by Judeo-Christian teachings within the Ugandan Church, her judicial approach has sparked significant controversy regarding the exercise of her mandate. http://www.iruns.ir/article_243027.html The devastating impact of COVID-19 on states and the international community have exposed significant weaknesses in the international legal framework for dealing with pandemics. Accordingly, the Member States of the World Health Organization have began work on a new international instrument aimed at better protecting people, communities and states from future pandemics and improving global preparedness and response to pandemics, which resulted in the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement with 35 articles, many of them cover issues not previously covered by any international rules.The provisions of the Pandemic Agreement can be divided into three general categories: the international cooperation approach, the health-based approach and the governance-based approach. During the negotiations, states adopted various positions on each article, such as opposition, divergence, convergence (a stage less than agreement and more than opposition or non-convergence) and agreement. The study of the articles of the pandemic agreement shows that in some cases, international cooperation is a sacrifice to the sovereignty and interests of states. In fact, the provisions of the agreement wherever seek to strengthen, sovereignty, the states have been agreed with them, and wherever there has been a fear of sovereignty being shaken, states have shown reactions such as divergence and opposition. http://www.iruns.ir/article_243026.html The international system that emerged after the Second World War was founded upon a rule-based and ‎institutional framework in which the United Nations and the Security Council were positioned at the core as ‎guarantors of collective peace and security. Although this order consistently operated under the shadow of power ‎politics, it nevertheless provided, for decades, a shared framework for restraining the use of force and regulating ‎state behavior. Developments over the past two decades, however, indicate that this legal shield has gradually ‎eroded, giving way to an ambiguous, interpretive, and power-centered order, one in which rules are less binding ‎norms than instruments contingent upon the will and interests of dominant powers.‎By examining the conceptual transition from treaty-based international law to a so-called “rules-based ‎international order,” and by analyzing the structural inefficiencies of the Security Council, this article ‎demonstrates how traditional multilateral diplomacy has lost its deterrent capacity in addressing contemporary ‎security crises, particularly in the Middle East. Israel’s attack on Iranian territory and the Security Council’s ‎inaction in response serve as a concrete test case that exposes this institutional erosion and highlights the ‎limitations of relying exclusively on international legal mechanisms. The article ultimately argues that within ‎such an order, national security and state interests have become increasingly dependent on bilateral diplomacy and ‎contractual network-building; in the absence of such infrastructure, Iran faces the risk of deepening structural ‎isolation within the international system.‎